Is John MacArthur A Christian?

Is John MacArthur a Christian?

By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim

——-

MacArthur is a Reformed Protestant and a

strong proponent of expository preaching.

He has been acknowledged by Christianity

Today as one of the most influential

preachers of his time and was a frequent

guest on Larry King Live as a representative

of an evangelical Christian perspective.

— Wikipedia

——-

Is Religious Experience Unchristian?

John MacArthur typically uses exaggerated caricatures of New Testament (NT) teachings to mock and ridicule *religious existential experiences.* But isn’t religious experience the foundation of our salvation, according to the NT? Romans 8.9 (NLT) says, “remember that those who do not have the Spirit of Christ living in them do not belong to him at all.” So how do you get the Spirit of Christ to live in you if not through an experience? Is it based on wishful thinking? Jesus says in Jn 3.3: “unless you are born again, you cannot see the Kingdom of God.” But how is someone “born again”? Through a profession of faith? Absolutely not! Jesus clearly emphasizes that no one will be accepted into the kingdom of heaven simply on that basis alone. Much to their horror, those who thought they were saved will be utterly perplexed, confused, and disappointed! They will appeal and say: “Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name.” (Mt. 7.22). But Christ will ultimately reject them and say: “I never knew you” (Mt. 7.23).

So, how is one born again if not through some kind of an experience? And how does one develop a relationship with Christ if not through an experience? Jesus simply becomes an imaginary partner or a wishful thought or daydream? Is that what the NT teaches? And how do we get a new identity, according to Eph. 4.22-24? By reading the Bible? MacArthur clearly contradicts Scripture by implying that Christian salvation is not based on any “experience” at all. Yet, in Philippians 2.12 (NASB) Paul exhorts:

work out your own salvation with fear and

trembling.

Fear and trembling do not occur except in unusual circumstances that involve “experiences” of existential dread! And, according to Paul, these experiences are essential to working out one’s salvation. Yet with regard to religious experience, MacArthur says the exact opposite. In a YouTube video, he exclaims:

it’s nothing but sheer imagination, at best;

and, at worst, you are courting demons. . . .

And some people, sad to say, it’s not

enough to believe in Christ, they pursue the

paranormal, the supernatural, the mystical,

the intuitive, and they make things happen

in the mind that aren’t happening, and they

open themselves to things that do happen

from demonic sources. It’s a frightening

thing to think about.

So demonic sources can make things happen, but God can’t? In other words, he suggests that demons can make things happen in this realm, whereas God is powerless and can’t possibly compete with them. Then he added:

Why is it that people pursue that? I’ll tell you

why. Because somewhere in their theology

they have bought into the fact that it’s not

enough to have Christ. And they’re into all

these experience with angels, and so

forth.

——-

Should We Reject the Supernatural?

The problem with John MacArthur is that he doesn’t explain the process by which we “have Christ” in the first place. How exactly do we have Christ if not through an experience? He went on to say,

that’s not great faith that brings those

supernatural experiences; that’s doubt

looking for proof that fantasizes those

experiences.

So, according to John MacArthur, the supernatural signs and wonders of the NT, including the supernatural miracles of Jesus, do not involve great faith——contradicting what Jesus himself taught (Mt. 14.31)——but are rather fantasies that don’t really exist! How then does his epistemology differ from that of Liberal theology? Isn’t it one and the same? He’s basically saying that the supernatural dimension does not exist. It’s a fantasy world of imagination, at best, or the realm of the demonic world, at worst. Really? Isn’t that what the Pharisees accused Jesus of, namely, of casting out demons because “He gets his power from Satan, the prince of demons”? (Mt. 12.24 NLT).

In fact, in trying to downplay and discredit visions and experiences, he will even pit Paul against Paul! He employs Paul as a mouthpiece to denigrate visions and revelations. Yet, according to Galatians 1.11-12, everything that Paul knows about Christ is EXCLUSIVELY through visions and revelations (cf. 2 Cor. 12.1-4). Besides, didn’t John of Patmos see visions and revelations that he later encoded in the Book of Revelation? Are we to conclude that he, too, was just imagining things that are not real and do not exist? Was Paul’s vision of Christ (Acts 9.3-5) equally false and imaginary? And this man is lauded and respected as a credible pastor-teacher? Listen to some of his comments that were directed to his congregation:

Now, there’s no higher plane. There is no

surpassing experience. There’s no deeper

life.

If we didn’t know who uttered these words we would easily ascribe them to a positive atheist like Michael Shermer or Richard Dawkins. Astoundingly, they were uttered by John MacArthur. This is downright false. This man has drifted away from Christianity. His epistemological position is extremely dangerous. He’s putting peoples’ salvation on the line. By contrast, here’s Jesus’ promise to those who love him (Jn 14.21):

I will love them and reveal [ἐμφανίσω]

myself to each of them.

MacArthur then diverts his listeners’ attention by attacking a straw man. He creates a false dichotomy and makes it appear as if this debate is about Christ versus experiences. Either Christ is sufficient or else you choose experiences. But that’s a red herring. On the contrary, Jesus demands regeneration, and Paul exhorts believers to “be transformed by the renewing of your mind (Rom. 12.2 NASB), not by simply reading the Bible and pretending to have an imaginary relationship with Jesus. How is Christ sufficient? Simply through reading a Book? That’s preposterous! In fact, the one thing that God wants us to do is to *experience* him. That’s the whole Bible in a nutshell!

(see YouTube video: https://youtu.be/e0fETODHsoM)

——-

Is the Experience of the Holy Spirit Nonsensical?

In another video, he claims that spiritual formation——in which people seek inside themselves——is “just a lot of bunk.” He says:

digging deep in to find your spiritual core

and your spiritual center . . . is nonsense.

In other words, he’s contradicting the Word of God. Acts 2.1-4 (NLT) reads:

On the day of Pentecost all the believers

were meeting together in one place.

Suddenly, there was a sound from heaven

like the roaring of a mighty windstorm, and

it filled the house where they were sitting.

Then, what looked like flames or tongues of

fire appeared and settled on each of them.

And everyone present was filled with the

Holy Spirit and began speaking in other

languages, as the Holy Spirit gave them this

ability.

——-

MacArthur’s Deism

Then he goes on to explain his own theology and soteriology, which are diametrically opposed to those of the NT. He says without flinching:

The assumption is that spiritual truth is

somewhere inside of you. And that is not

true. Spiritual truth is outside of you. It is

external to you. It is in a Book outside of

you. It is not in you. . . . You can go sit on a

rock in the middle of nowhere and think,

and you will find in you no source of divine

revelation whatsoever. Because divine

revelation is external to you. It’s external to

every human being. It’s in a book that God

wrote. And when you put the book down

and start looking into your own brain all

you’re gonna do is be led down a black

hole.

This is a deist understanding of God as a transcendent Being, wholly independent of the material universe, who is not accessible to creatures and does not personally interact with them. So, the NT teaching that the Holy Spirit “will be in you” (ἐν ὑμῖν)——in Jn 14.17, 23 (cf. Rom. 8.9), or “that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who lives in you [ἐν ὑμῖν]” (1 Cor. 6.19)——is false? (cf. Titus 3.5; 1 Jn 2.27). This is the exact opposite of what Lk 17.21 says, namely, that the kingdom of God is within you (ἐντὸς ὑμῶν ἐστιν)! So, “truth” (who is Jesus; Jn 14.6) is never inside (immanent) but always outside of every believer? Of course not! In Rev. 3.20, Jesus declares the exact opposite:

Look! I stand at the door and knock. If you

hear my voice and open the door, I will

come in [εἰσελεύσομαι πρὸς αὐτὸν].

According to MacArthur, it seems that a personal relationship with Jesus is equivalent to just reading about him in a book. So, there’s no truth outside the Bible, no experiential relationship to God, no real spiritual insight, no miracles, no supernatural world, no signs & wonders, no changes in the personality, no religious experiences, no Holy Spirit, nothing whatsoever. This is a form of deism, pure and simple: God does not intervene in the affairs of men except through a book. Not only does this view contradict Scripture, it is patently ridiculous and utterly absurd! To hear a supposed Bible teacher——who holds the attention of millions worldwide on a daily basis——saying these things is absolutely shocking, if not shameful.

——-

If Being Born Again Is Not an Experience, Is It a form of Rote Learning?

MacArthur continued:

That’s what happens when you start

trying to poke around inside of yourself for

spiritual truth when it’s all contained in

one book, and that book is external to you.

And the spiritual truth resides in that

book, if you never lived or if you never had

a thought. It’s the external truth that we

must understand, cuz there’s nothing

inside, until that truth gets in our minds.

So, he seems to suggest that “truth” gets into our minds not through the experience of regeneration but only by constant reading and repetition. In other words, he reduces Jesus’ and Paul’s spirituality to *rote learning.* So, When Paul says “put on the new self” (Eph. 4.24 NASB) or the new identity, does he mean that our personalities will radically change as we master the Biblical literature through repetition and memorization or through some sort of intellectual assent? If that were so, Christianity would be nothing more than B. F. Skinner’s behaviorism!

——-

BIBLE IDOLATRY

John MacArthur’s message seems to be that nothing happens inside of us experientially. God only speaks today through the Bible. He has made of the Bible an idol. And he has also broken the first Commandment: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Yet he worships the Bible (aka bibliolatry)! Jesus, however, poignantly rebukes such people in John 5.39 (NLT):

You search the Scriptures because you

think they give you eternal life. But the

Scriptures point to me!

In short, according to MacArthur, the Bible has replaced God. God can no longer speak apart from or outside the Bible. Scripture also trumps Jesus. His spiritual relationship to human beings is not direct; it is indirect via the Bible. Put differently, we no longer believe in Jesus or God as realities or entities, which exist outside the Bible, with the ability to communicate and transform our lives. No! They interact with us only in and through the Bible. Therefore, we only believe in the literary “word” of God: *the Bible!* These divine beings only exist inside the Bible and not apart from it. That’s what John MacArthur seems to be saying. He’s in love with a book, not the author of that book. Outside of that book, he doesn’t seem to “know” its author. He only meets him via that book! By contrast, 1 Corinthians 4.20 (KJV) says: “For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.” This is what the Protestant reformation of sola scriptura has produced. But this epistemology is completely bogus, as if God is incapable of speaking to us outside the Bible. As Jesus observes: “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me” (Mt. 15:8)!

——-

Conclusion

For John MacArthur, belief, not experience, is the key. Therefore, we don’t need to “experience” or “know” Jesus intimately or personally. The old saying: “Taste and see that the LORD is good” (Psalm 34:8) need not apply. In this strange and demonically twisted scenario, the Bible is Lord!

This is the hallmark of a false teacher. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the NT or with Christ’s command to love God above and beyond everything else, including books (Mk 12.30). It is not sanctioned by the Scriptures. And it is neither according to God’s word nor his will. It is a form of secularism: quasi-deism coupled with liberal theology. It is a counterfeit Christianity! This view is far removed from Christian teaching. It was quite laughable to witness.

If we sum up his theology, and take it to its logical conclusion, it’s as if God & Jesus are simply *literary characters* in the Bible whose powers and abilities are confined and subject to the authors’ discretion. Accordingly, we don’t have a personal relationship with Jesus; we have a personal relationship with the Bible! We don’t know God apart from the Bible. That’s MacArthur’s basic message, namely, that Christianity is not a “spiritual” but rather a “literary” religion! He reduces Apocalyptic Christianity to literature! His rejection of religious experience, and of the operations of the Holy Spirit, is analogous to paganism!

He contradicts both himself and the Bible by stating that mystical, supernatural experiences do not exist. Yet the Bible is filled with them: think of Isaiah, Daniel, Paul, John, and Jesus!

So, his teaching involves not only an unwarranted epistemology——in which real, living, divine persons become reduced to literary characters——but also a self-contradictory exegesis wherein he refutes the very teaching he espouses, namely, the supernatural world of the Bible!

My question is simply this: does John MacArthur represent authentic Christianity?

And, judging from his own statements, the answer is a resounding no!

(see YouTube video: https://youtu.be/mTEm9NI17Do)

——-

The Quran’s Alternative Christianity

By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim

——-

Christianity’s Influence on the Quran

Although polytheism was the dominant form of religion in pre-Islamic Arabia, the Quran was diametrically opposed to this view and superseded it with its own brand of monotheism. The unknown author(s) of the Quran was obviously influenced by the Gnostic religion of the Mandaeans, who are sometimes called "Christians of Saint John," and by that of the Sabians or Manichaeans, who revered certain prophets, such as Zoroaster and Jesus. Despite these strong surrounding influences, however, the author(s) of the Quran seems to gravitate towards the Judeo-Christian Bible, paying special attention to the Jesus story and accepting even some of its more miraculous or fantastic elements, such as the virgin birth and the 2nd coming. That’s a clue that Christianity made a greater impact on the author(s) of the Quran than, say, Mithraism, Zoroastrianism, or Mazdakism! If, on the other hand, the author(s) of the Quran had used Judaism as a prototype of his new religion, then, in principle, he would never have accepted the Christian claims. Besides, Islam doesn’t show strict adherence to circumcision or the Law. And even though Moses and Abraham are mentioned more times than Jesus in the Quran, it’s rather obvious that Christianity had made a deeper impact on the author(s) than any other religion! And just as Christianity accepted the Hebrew Bible, so did the Quran.

——-

A Christian Revolt

Do you really know what the Quran is? Answer: the product of a late *Gnostic Christian revolt* against Byzantine Orthodoxy. No wonder its adherents hated Constantinople so vigorously that they finally sacked it in 1453 ce. What I am proposing is that the *Gnostic-Christian Sects* that were marginalized by Byzantine Orthodoxy from the fourth century onwards didn’t go away quietly but seemingly conspired against the Church during the early part of the dark ages! The result of those efforts eventuated in the Book we now call the Quran. The syncretistic-gnostic elements present in the Quran suggest that it was in fact an amalgamation of heresies that characterized many different Gnostic Christian sects.

——-

The Apocryphal Reformation

After the 4th-Century Church solidified itself theologically and otherwise within the Roman Empire and began to accept certain “canonical” texts while excluding others, those communities that held to the *rejected* gnostic and so-called “apocryphal” works eventually united to form their own Bible. The result was the Quran, which was mostly based on a variety of Jewish and Christian apocryphal and Gnostic texts!

Over time, Islam gradually lost it’s connection to Christianity (much like Christianity did when it broke away from Judaism) and became an independent religion in its own right. It may have been more Christ-centered at the beginning. But in order to distinguish itself from its rival Christian counterparts it would have had to significantly deemphasize its central Christian tenets. So, the first communities that gave rise to the Quran most probably comprised Gnostic Christians. Thus, the author of the Quran may have been seeking to take revenge on his Orthodox superiors, much like what a disgruntled Christian priest would do at a local church. Martin Luther immediately comes to mind and, with him, the Protestant Reformation!

——-

The Beginning of Islam as a Christian Minority Religion

No wonder the Quran reveres the Christian dogmas of the virgin birth and the second coming of Jesus, while putting less emphasis on the historical Jesus, his atonement, and his divinity! And the Islamic traditions begin to make more sense from this perspective, as, for example, when the Nestorian monk Bahira in Bosra foretold to the adolescent Muhammad his future prophetic career. And just as Orthodoxy condemned the Gnostic Christian texts as *heretical* and *uninspired*, Islam must have fired back at them alleging that the so-called “canonical Christian texts” themselves were *corrupt*. It seems, then, that Islam itself came out of these early Gnostic-Nestorian Christian roots! In other words, even though it now openly competes with Christianity for converts, originally, Islam must have been a Christian minority religion on the fringes of the Eastern Roman Empire that was well-aware of all the debates that were raging all around them.

——-

The New Testament Epistles Concur with the Apocryphal Texts that Undergird the Quran

As an offshoot of Christian Gnosticism, with an emphasis on personal existential experience rather than reason or doctrine, the Quran was, perhaps, closer to the truth than the pontifical, dogmatic Christianity of the Roman Empire. Gnosis, after all, was all about knowing rather than believing. And just because the Gnostic Christian texts were rejected by the church does not necessarily mean that they were wholly uninspired. For example, the Second Treatise of the Great Seth and the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter, as attested in the Quran (Sura 4:157-158), doubt the established Crucifixion story and, by implication, perhaps even Jesus’ historicity. In other words, the Quran picked up Docetic thoughts and Gnostic ideas and asserted that all the acts and sufferings of Jesus’ life, including the crucifixion, were mere appearances. This is a noteworthy observation because, unlike the theological gospels, the New Testament epistles also suggest that Christ did not die in antiquity. Rather, they claim that he will be revealed “at the final point of time” (1 Pet. 1.20 NJB) and will die “once in the end of the world” (Heb. 9.26b). This idea of an earthly, eschatological messiah is also echoed in the pseudepigraphical Jewish-Christian texts, The Ascension of Isaiah and the Testament of Solomon. But it had been subsequently suppressed by Orthodox Christianity, which confused theology with history, and turned prophecy into biography. So, in this sense, Islam was correct in maintaining that the New Testament had been corrupted: not the text itself, but rather it’s interpretation.

However, as time passed, and as Islam separated itself more and more from Christianity, it, too, began to lose touch with the central tenet of Christ’s divinity, while its adherents took too many liberties with the original doctrines and became less and less “Christian”! To the extent that Islam gravitated away from Christ as the focal point of its doctrines, it, too, became corrupt, so much so that the deity of Christ was completely ignored or denied. Eventually, the religion’s deity became more identified with the monotheistic God of the Jews than with that of the Christians. That was the beginning of something new: the birth of a new religion!

——-

Family Feud Among the Abrahamic Religions

To sum up, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all part of the family of Abraham. Hence why they are called Abrahamic religions. Christianity, which grew out of Judaism, in turn, gave birth to Islam! But in the end, it’s like a dysfunctional family where the grandfather, father, and son can’t get along with each other.

——-

Which Church is the True Church of Jesus Christ?

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

The Decline of Christianity

Christianity has become a speculative art. It has created over 38,000 denominations as well as thousands of seminaries and Christian universities all over the world in an effort to promote its speculative and largely anthropomorphic doctrines. What’s more, academic faculties have hitherto bestowed higher degrees to qualified graduates who are deemed “knowledgeable” in doctrinal and pastoral matters. And so the theological baton has been passed from teacher to student seemingly ad infinitum.

In the seminary or the academy everyone has an opinion, and so there are, naturally, a wide variety of viewpoints and many different schools of thought. However, there can only be one truth, if it exists at all. So, which view is correct in any given case? Well, we’re living in the post-modern era of relativism, so take your pick. Both Christian methodology and epistemology are equally informed by currents in academia (i.e. interdisciplinary studies), so much so that doctrinal issues are beginning to reflect the modern culture more and more, from liberation theology and feminist theology, to even queer theology and trans-gendered theology.

What ever happened to the concept of one church, one body, one Lord, one spirit, one faith? (Eph. 4.4-6). Whatever happened to Paul’s appeal “that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose”? (1 Cor. 1.10 NRSV).

——-

A State of Theological Confusion

This state of affairs is primarily due to the fact that we have lost sight of who is a true Christian, and who is not. We can no longer differentiate between a nominal Christian and an authentic one. We don’t even know what constitutes a real Christian and what is the criteria for meeting that requirement. And we certainly don’t know who’s telling the truth. Fake news, false narratives, and the spread of misinformation have affected every aspect of Christianity. So, because we can’t tell the difference between what is true and what is false, we generally classify Christian doctrines into various levels based on their popularity. We decide which pastor to listen to according to their social status, academic degrees, reputation, experience, popularity, book sales, and the like. Or, we walk into a particular church simply because of how it makes us feel. These are not valid reasons for attending church, for following a particular denomination or pastor, or for assenting to their doctrines and believing in their creeds. That’s why modern Christianity has lost its direction and has gone so far astray that it no longer represents the teachings of Jesus Christ. It only represents human inventions, speculations, and secular academic endeavours. Sadly, modern Christianity doesn’t have a clue about the revelation of the New Testament (NT) or about its main object of study: Jesus Christ. Second Timothy 4.3-4 reads:

For the time is coming when people will not

put up with sound doctrine, but having

itching ears, they will accumulate for

themselves teachers to suit their own

desires, and will turn away from listening to

the truth and wander away to myths.

——-

True Christians Get their Information Directly from God

There are only a few regenerated people in this world who know the *truths* of the NT, and this is due to their intimate knowledge of, and personal relationship with, Jesus! These all share the exact same knowledge of Christ! For them, the truth does not vary. Their knowledge is identical without the slightest variation as to the basic truths of the faith. They are all one, united in one faith, under one spirit and one lord. How is that possible, you may ask? The information they receive does not come from seminaries or academic universities, or from books or distinguished scholars. No. It comes straight from the mouth of God (Deut. 8.3; cf. Mt. 4.4). How can that be, you ask?

In the Old Testament (OT), there is obviously a divine communication that is revealed between God and humankind, particularly when the prophets declare categorically what “the LORD says” (cf. Jer. 23.38; 1 Kgs 12.24; Ezek. 20.5; Amos 5.16). This OT divine communication is also promised to the NT believers who will be regenerated in the Spirit (Jn 16.13):

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will

guide you into all the truth; for he will not

speak on his own, but will speak whatever

he hears, and he will declare to you the

things that are to come [ερχόμενα].

So, the process of salvation, or regeneration, has everything to do with knowledge and truth! It is the dividing line or the threshold between authentic and false Christianity. And that makes all the difference in the world. People are confused about what salvation is. For instance, there are all sorts of scholarly debates between those who hold to “easy-believism” and those who adhere to lordship salvation. There are those who think they are saved, when they’re not. For example, pastors often tell people, who answer altar calls, that they have been reborn simply because they made a profession of faith. Joel Osteen is a case in point. Other folk think they can go on sinning because all they are required to do is to believe, according to their interpretation of Scripture. Steven Anderson, the pastor of Faithful Word Baptist Church, is such an example. But God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14.33). And, unfortunately, most people don’t know what authentic salvation in Christ really is. If people have believed lies, then the truth will necessarily seem false to them. So they react negatively by portraying true salvation as if it were evil, unbiblical, untraditional, or even revolting. However, if you reject true salvation, your Christianity is as fake as you are. Your pseudo-religion is nothing more than a bad caricature of Christianity. Just listen to one of Paul Washer’s sermons. There is only one way for you to know the truth and become a part of the one true church of Jesus. And that is by understanding the *process* by which you can be saved!

Every church and every ministry teaches something different, and most of their teachings are completely foreign to the NT. It’s reminiscent of Paul’s stern warning to the church of Corinth (1 Cor. 1.12, 13) that began to split into various divisions or denominations:

each of you says, ‘I belong to Paul,’ or ‘I

belong to Apollos,’ or ‘I belong to Cephas,’

or ‘I belong to Christ.’ Has Christ been

divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or

were you baptized in the name of Paul?

Paul explicitly condemns this fragmentation of church doctrine and says it is not of God. Accordingly, 1 Timothy 4.1-3 is prophesying of what is to come:

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later

times some will renounce the faith by

paying attention to deceitful spirits and

teachings of demons, through the hypocrisy

of liars whose consciences are seared with

a hot iron. They forbid marriage and

demand abstinence from foods, which God

created to be received with thanksgiving by

those who believe and know the truth.

——-

A Soteriological Crisis

Why all the splinter groups and all the contradictory doctrines? Because we lost touch with spirituality. In other words, we lost touch with God. We can no longer hear him. We can no longer communicate with him. Why? Because we’re suffering from bibliolatry! The Bible is not an end in itself. It’s supposed to lead us to Christ. Yet we have become idolaters, Bible-worshipping Christians with no spirituality whatsoever, as if the Bible alone had the capacity to transform us into Christ. As if the Bible has replaced Christ. Hence the reason for Jesus’ caveat in Jn 5.39:

You search the scriptures because you think

that in them you have eternal life; and it is

they that testify on my behalf.

We’ve also created new doctrines and man-made traditions. The various doctrines became officially mandated during the successive councils of the church. Thus, all the denominations are in error. They exist without NT authority. Consider what Christ will say to the fake Christians on Judgment day (Mt. 7.21-23):

Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,'

will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only

the one who does the will of my Father in

heaven. On that day many will say to me,

‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your

name, and cast out demons in your name,

and do many deeds of power in your

name?’ Then I will declare to them, ‘I never

knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.'

But what exactly does it mean to do the will of Christ’s father? Does it depend on us, forcing our will to conform to his, through repetitive behavioural acts? No. It means to surrender your will to God so that you can say with Paul, “it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me” (Gal. 2.20). Then, divine obedience becomes natural and automatic. But, unfortunately, that’s not what we’ve been told by the religious authorities. We’ve been taught to think that we’re Christians on our way to heaven. In other words, there’ll be upright people——people who even claim to believe in Jesus——that will be lost on the day of judgment! But what is the soteriological standard against which all other theories are measured? Notice the criterion that God uses: “I never knew you.” So, we must try to explain, then, how it is that God “knows us.” Answer: if we surrender our life to him, he will know us personally and intimately in a deep, unitive, and mystical sense. In short, he will permanently become an integral part of our lives (Jn 14.23):

Those who love me will keep my word, and

my Father will love them, and we will come

to them and make our home with them.

But how can you make this happen? How can you become a part of the true church? Some say by “obedience,” while others claim you only need to “believe.” But they are both wrong because both of these Pelagian premises are based on you saving yourself through personal works. In this scenario, Jesus becomes utterly irrelevant. So, that’s not it. The answer is, you have to be transformed! Notice in the undermentioned passage that Jesus inflicts “vengeance on those who do not know God” and who, therefore, disobey him. The text prophesies the final consummation (2 Thess. 1.7, 8),

when the Lord Jesus is revealed from

heaven with his mighty angels in flaming

fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do

not know God and on those who do not

obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

Most churches claim that all you have to do to be saved involves rote learning and habitual religious exercises. For example, the Church of Christ says that you have to obey the Gospel by hearing, Believing, Repenting, Confessing, and being baptised. And then you’ll be saved. How wonderful. How convenient. How painless. All man-made, all based on one’s own efforts, and the greatest thing of all, no spirituality is necessary, and there’s no need for a change of heart or a radical renewing of the mind (Rom. 12.2). By the way, when Paul speaks of baptism, he’s not referring to the immersion in water but to a painful baptism into Christ’s death that regenerates the believer “in newness of life” during the dark night of the soul (cf. Acts 19.5-6). He says in Rom. 6.3, 4:

Do you not know that all of us who have

been baptized into Christ Jesus were

baptized into his death? Therefore we have

been buried with him by baptism into death,

so that, . . . we too might walk in newness of

life.

So, congregants are being deceived into thinking that they are saved, when they are not! Church leaders will typically quote a few out-of-context verses about belief in Christ and his resurrection, and, if you meet these criteria, they’ll tell you that you’re good to go. You’re saved. This is downright nonsense! How pathetic has been the fall of so many people who were not properly trained or educated on the nature of salvation within the Christian faith. No wonder so many of them have left the faith and have turned to atheism, profoundly disillusioned with the form of Christianity that could neither solve their problems nor offer any meaning in the face of today’s postmodern world.

——-

You Will Know the Truth, and the Truth Will Make You Free (John 8.32)

As Paul reminds us, “Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him” (Rom. 8.9). So, how do we do our part in order to allow this transformation to take place and to invite the Spirit into our lives? There are many methods. However, one of the most effective means of doing so is by way of “stillness,” which is traditionally known as a prayer of silence! From a phenomenological perspective, this Kierkegaardian “leap of faith” requires a transcendent existential experience. This involves a deep meditation in which the mind leaves all knowledge behind and passes into a state of transcendent *unknowing* where the “intuition of naked truths” is “conveyed to the understanding” (John of the Cross. “Ascent of Mount Carmel.” Trans. E. Allison Peers. [Liguori: Triumph, 1991], p. 182). The point is that we’re not going to get there by discursive thinking but rather by “being,” in the existential sense!

Thus, being obedient is not enough. Being morally upright or having good intentions is not enough. Being a descendant of Abraham is not enough. Salvation is not based on a biological birth, but on a birth from above. In short, we must be born again (Jn 3.3):

Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the

kingdom of God without being born from

above.

See my article: How Are We Saved? https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/624396009262415872/how-are-we-saved-is-it-simply-by-belief-alone-or

Eli of Kittim

How Are We Saved: Is It Simply By Belief Alone, Or Do We Have To Go Out Of Ourselves Ecstatically In Order To Make That Happen?

By Eli Kittim ——- What does the Bible say about salvation? Romans 8.14 implies that if you’re not “led by the Spirit” you’re NOT a child of

The Fullness of Time Theology: A Critique of Covenant And Dispensational Theology

By Author Eli Kittim

My Agreements and Disagreements with both Camps

One has to be au courant with Biblical Hermeneutics to evaluate various facets of Christian theology. I would like to stress at the outset that I’m not a proponent of either covenant or dispensational theology. I do accept certain aspects of both theologies while rejecting others.

I’m not a reformed theologian but I do agree that the Old Testament (OT) is essentially Christocentric (not Jewishcentric) and that the New Testament (NT) is not talking about two peoples (the church and the Jews) but rather one: the elect (cf. Eph. 2.19-20), which is to say the Biblical metanarrative of the OT is not about a race but about a person: the Messiah! Some pastors, like John Hagee, have gone so far as to say that the Jews don’t need Jesus; they can be saved by their own covenants. The dispensational view is therefore unbiblical because it creates 2 people of God: the Jews and the church. Part of the problem is their reliance on denotative meanings and a literal interpretation of Scripture. In my view, the church doesn’t replace Israel. The church is Israel (cf. Rom. 9.8; Gal. 3.29; 6.16). It’s always been about the elect in Christ. If in fact there are 2 peoples with 2 sets of standards (law & grace) by which they’re saved, then that would invalidate Christ’s atonement, as would the rebuilding of the third temple, which would necessitate the reinstituting of animal sacrifices.

The Dispensation of the Fullness of Time

As a framework for biblical interpretation, dispensationalism is often described as a series of ages or different periods in history. This interpretative framework defines each distinctive time period as a dispensation or an administration of an age. But the only temporal dispensation I find in the NT is that of the fullness of time. Ephesians 1.9-10 reads:

γνωρίσας ἡμῖν τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θελήματος

αὐτοῦ, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν αὐτοῦ ἣν

προέθετο ἐν αὐτῷ εἰς οἰκονομίαν τοῦ

πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν,

ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι τὰ πάντα ἐν

τῷ Χριστῷ, τὰ ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ

τῆς γῆς · ἐν αὐτῷ.

Translation (NRSV):

“he has made known to us the mystery of his

will, according to his good pleasure that he

set forth in Christ, as a plan [οἰκονομίαν] for

the fullness of time, to gather up all things

in him, things in heaven and things on

earth.”

In short; the designation “the fullness of time” (τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν) refers to the period of time (οἰκονομίαν; dispensation) when all things, both in in the heavens and upon the earth, will conclude in Christ. The Greek word ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι means to “sum up” (see G.W.H. Lampe [ed.], A Patristic Greek Lexicon [Oxford: Oxford University, 1961], pp. 1094-95).

So, according to Eph. 1.10, it’s “a plan [dispensation] for the fullness of time,” which will culminate “at the end of the age” (cf. Gal. 4.4; Dan. 12.4 LXX; Mt. 13.39-40, 49; 24.3; 28.20; Heb. 9.26b)! Surprisingly, neither covenant theology nor dispensational theology refer to this Biblical dispensation. Similarly, in Acts 3.19-21, Peter is addressing a crowd and astoundingly refers to Christ’s coming in the context of futurist eschatology. He refers to “the Messiah appointed for you” as the προκεχειρισμένον (i.e. appointed beforehand) Christ “Jesus, who must remain in heaven until the time of universal restoration that God announced long ago through his holy prophets.” Peter says:

“Repent therefore, and turn to God so that

your sins may be wiped out, so that times of

refreshing may come from the presence of

the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah

appointed for you, that is, Jesus, who must

remain in heaven until the time of universal

restoration that God announced long ago

through his holy prophets.”

Thus, the key Biblical dispensation or plan of God is the one pertaining to the fullness of time (i.e. at the end of the age) when all his plans will be fulfilled.

Grace Has Always Existed

Ephesians 3.1-9 explains that God’s plan was always to turn the entire world into Israel (i.e. a holy people, not a race):

“This is the reason that I Paul am a prisoner

for Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles

—for surely you have already heard of the

commission [οἰκονομίαν; dispensation] of

God’s grace that was given me for you, and

how the mystery was made known to me by

revelation [ἀποκάλυψιν], as I wrote above in

a few words, a reading of which will enable

you to perceive my understanding of the

mystery of Christ. In former generations this

mystery was not made known to

humankind, as it has now been revealed to

his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit:

that is, the Gentiles have become fellow

heirs, members of the same body, and

sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus

through the gospel. Of this gospel I have

become a servant according to the gift of

God’s grace that was given me by the

working of his power. Although I am the very

least of all the saints, this grace was given

to me to bring to the Gentiles the news of

the boundless riches of Christ, and to make

everyone see what is the plan [οἰκονομία;

dispensation] of the mystery hidden for

ages in God who created all things.”

In other words, it was part of God’s plan from the outset to call the entire world Israel! The dispensation or plan of God was to reveal the mystery that the Gentiles also form part of the chosen people of God. However, before we can demonstrate this point, we first need to show how grace was always available, even from the time of the Pentateuch (the Torah).

I should note, parenthetically, that there’s a theological confusion pertaining to God’s dispensation of grace with regard to soteriology. Many Biblical thinkers mistakenly assume that God’s grace is not offered to humanity until the *timing* of the atonement, or the cross, if you will. The age prior to that is often viewed as a time that precedes the age of grace. But that is an incorrect position which presumes that our salvation cannot precede the timing of Christ’s sacrifice (see my article: Theology Versus Chronology https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/611676639545393152/theology-versus-chronology-a-soteriological-view).

Eli of Kittim

Theology Versus Chronology: A Soteriological View

By Eli Kittim ——- John 7.39 Indicates that the Holy Spirit Was Unavailable Prior to Jesus’ Glorification. Is this Verse Giving Us a Chrono

One could reasonably argue that grace was always available “by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2.23) and was even explicitly mentioned in the writings of the law and the prophets. Deut. 30.6 is a case in point. The undermentioned verse from the Torah doesn’t appeal to works but to grace:

“circumcise your heart and the heart of your

descendants, so that you will love the Lord

your God with all your heart and with all

your soul, in order that you may live.”

Ezekiel 36:26 is very similar. Here, once again, the OT is not referring to Works but to Grace. The text reads:

“I will give you a new heart and put a new

spirit in you; I will remove from you your

heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.”

Jeremiah 31.33 (cf. 24.7; 32.39-40) is along similar lines:

“I will put my law within them, and I will write

it on their hearts.”

In a comparable manner, Ezekiel 18.31 (cf. 11.19) says:

“Cast away from you all the transgressions

that you have committed against me, and

get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit!

Why will you die, O house of Israel?”

But if this covenant with Israel is a covenant of Grace (cf. Jer. 31.33; Heb. 8.10), then who is Israel? Answer: the elect; the chosen people; those who are in Christ. If that was always God’s plan or οἰκονομίαν, to which all things in the OT pointed, then Grace was always available and did not suddenly come into play during NT times.

Therefore, there are not two people of God but only one: those who are in Christ. At the end of the age, Christ will not judge the world like a shepherd separating three types of people: the elect, the reprobates, and the Jews. Rather, he will separate “the sheep from the goats” (Mt. 25.32). In other words, there are only two categories: you are either in Christ or out of Christ!

What is more, Pastors do Christianity a disservice when erroneously stating that the Jews will be saved after the rapture. No they will not! The gates will be shut after the church leaves the earth. Matthew 25.10-12:

“and the door was shut. Later the other

bridesmaids came also, saying, ‘Lord, lord,

open to us.' But he replied, ‘Truly I tell you, I

do not know you.' “

That’s what the Parable of the Ten Virgins signifies. The 10 virgins represent the church that is waiting for the Bridegroom, who is Jesus (Mt. 9.15), to take her away in the rapture——“for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready” (Rev. 19.7).

That is what the parable of the 10 virgins means. To teach that Jews will be saved after the rapture is a false and dangerous teaching that is jeopardizing people’s lives.

Just because the Jews misinterpreted their Scriptures doesn’t mean that grace wasn’t available or that God didn’t refer to their regeneration-through-the-spirit in the OT. Therefore, to arbitrarily superimpose different dispensational ages and read them back into the text is as dangerous as it is reprehensible.

So, Grace was always present from the very beginning. But it was not fully understood until the NT era. But that doesn’t mean that it was not alluded to or explicitly referenced in the OT. It certainly was, as I have demonstrated.

What Does the term Israel Mean?

The term Israel can refer to many things. It can mean the promise land (Palestine); it can signify the former northern kingdom; it can refer to the purported historical person known as Jacob; it can be a reference to the 12 tribes; it can refer to God’s chosen people (of which a subset would be God’s people of the OT & NT); Israel can refer to Jews; it could mean the modern nation that’s located in the Middle East; it can also refer to anyone who is of the Abrahamic covenant; that is, the descendants of Abraham (both figuratively and literally) can be called Israel; the religion itself can be called Israel (i.e. those who worship Yahweh); the people of God in today’s generation (aka the church) can also be called Israel; and so on and so forth. Thus, to interpret this term exclusively as “the Jews” is to ignore all the nuances of meaning that the text provides. Using the analogy of Scripture, we allow Paul to give us an exact definition of what it means to be a "Jew" within the NT context. Apparently, the biblical term Jew does not denote a race but rather an inner essence or, more precisely, an indwelling spirit pertaining to God. In Romans 2.28-29, Paul writes:

“For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly,

nor is circumcision that which is outward in

the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one

inwardly; and circumcision is that which is

of the heart.”

To further explore the significance of this passage, read William Barclay, a world-renowned NT scholar, and his commentaries in the book, The Letter to the Romans. The Daily Study Bible Series. Rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975, p. 47). What is more, 1 Pet 2.9 uses OT language, related to Israel, to describe the elect in Christ:

“But you are a chosen race, a royal

priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his

own possession, that you may proclaim the

excellencies of him who called you out of

darkness into his marvelous light.”

Who Are the Heirs of the OT Promises of God?

In the Book of Romans, Paul does not explicitly deny the notion that the concept of grace existed in OT writings. Since this was foreshadowed but not fully explained in the OT——with the exception of some soteriological allusions in certain passages, such as Isaiah 53.3-8 and Zechariah 12.9-10, for instance——Paul takes it upon himself to expound the merits of Grace vis-à-vis the messianic atonement in his letter to the Romans.

Even Covenant theologians find this so-called new manifestation of grace rather disturbing. According to them, there is only one covenant of grace that has been operating uniformly in each and every age. Thus, when Paul discusses “the commission of God's grace that was given” to him (Eph. 3.2), he’s referring to a “revelation” (ἀποκάλυψιν) in Eph. 3.3-7:

“the mystery was made known to me by

revelation, as I wrote above in a few words,

a reading of which will enable you to

perceive my understanding of the mystery

of Christ. In former generations this mystery

was not made known to humankind, as it

has now been revealed to his holy apostles

and prophets by the Spirit: that is, the

Gentiles have become fellow heirs,

members of the same body, and sharers in

the promise in Christ Jesus through the

gospel. Of this gospel I have become a

servant according to the gift of God's grace

that was given me by the working of his

power.”

What is this secret that “in former generations” was unknown? Ephesians 3.6 asserts that “the Gentiles have become fellow heirs”:

συνκληρονόμα [joint-heirs] καὶ [and]

σύσσωμα [a joint-body] καὶ [and]

συμμέτοχα [joint-partakers] τῆς [of

the] ἐπαγγελίας [promises] ἐν [in] Χριστῷ

[Christ] Ἰησοῦ [Jesus].

This means that the Israelites are not the sole inheritors of the OT promises of God. The Gentiles are co-inheritors. That is, they are identical with or equivalent to the people of Israel. In other words, they are like Israel in every conceivable way with regard to their divine relationship and position. In short, they share equal rights and status with Israel as the chosen people of God, the elect, so that they and Israel have become one and the same! This means that the OT passages regarding Israel, or the chosen people of God, necessarily allude to them, given that they figure prominently in the economy of God’s plan. However, in the end, it is those that are in Christ that are truly chosen (whether Jew or Gentile), not simply the literal Israelites. As descendants, Jews cannot appeal to their tradition for salvation, as if to say “We have Abraham as our father” (Mt. 3.9), because race alone will not save them (cf. Rom. 2.28-29).

The Fallacies of Dispensationalism

What is more, the arbitrary dispensations that refer to the age of innocence or the age of conscience have always been uniformly present in the development of human beings. They are not ages of time but rather stages of human development. A child is innocent until he/she reaches the age of reason or conscience after which they can make moral choices and decisions. The story of Adam and Eve is the story of humankind. It is the tale of temptation during the age of innocence in the life of every human being. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a connotative representation of those dual proclivities latent within the unconscious mind. There is no literal Cherubim wielding a flaming sword, or a literal garden, nor is there a tree of life planted somewhere on the earth which can make one live forever (i.e. the so-called fountain of youth). This is metaphorical language. To turn allegory into biography and call it the age of innocence or the age of conscience is a literal misrepresentation of Scripture.

Moreover, dispensationalists hypothesize the coming of a Millennial Kingdom, which seems to be a representation of the *timing* pertaining to the end of the age rather than a literal thousand year reign on earth (See my article, The Fallacies of Millennialism: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/634098142546198528/the-fallacies-of-millennialism).

Eli of Kittim

The Fallacies of Millennialism

By Eli Kittim ——- This article is partly excerpted from chapter 10 of my book, “The Little Book of Revelation.” Therein, I explain that the

Conclusion

The only Biblical dispensation that can be rigorously defended is that of *the fullness of time,* which refers to *the end of the age,* when “all things” will conclude in Christ (Eph. 1.9-10)! Moreover, as I have shown from the law and the prophets, grace has always been operative since the dawn of recorded history (cf. e.g. Gen. 3.15, 21). What is more, based on a *revelation* that was disclosed by Paul——the Christocentric content of which has always been part of God’s plan——the elect in Christ are the true heirs of the OT promises of God and, therefore, the true Israel. Finally, both covenant and dispensational theology have failed to grasp the Biblical metanarrative, whose central dispensation unfolds at the end of days (Dan. 12.13; Mt. 24.3; 1 Cor. 10.11), when all the inhabitants of the earth will witness “the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1.7; 1 Pet. 1.13; Rev. 1.1), the tribulation, the rapture, and the final consummation!

Isaiah 53: Why God’s Suffering Servant is Not Israel

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

The Bible sometimes uses metaphorical language that often involves multiple layers of meaning. Here’s a case in point. Isaiah 49.3 does mention the suffering servant as “Israel.” But four verses later the servant begins to take on unique individual qualities and characteristics that decidedly distinguish him from the earlier collective qualities of the nation of Israel. In fact, he is later contrasted with the nations, described with a masculine pronoun as an individual person who is “deeply despised” and rejected. Isa. 49.7 reads as follows:

Thus says the Lord, the

Redeemer of Israel and

his Holy One, to one

deeply despised,

abhorred by the nations,

the slave of rulers, ‘Kings

shall see and stand up,

princes, and they shall

prostrate themselves,

because of the Lord, who

is faithful, the Holy One

of Israel, who has chosen

you.’ [1]

This rejection is given more full treatment in chapter 53. So, the question arises: How can he be both a human being and the nation of *Israel* at the same time? Answer: He cannot!

In other words, as these chapters begin to unfold, the image of the *suffering servant* evolves considerably, so much so that he’s later described with a masculine personal pronoun and depicted as an individual *man,* indeed a male: “He” (Hb. הוּא hu, which is the equivalent of the Greek αὐτὸς).[2] Therefore, it behooves us to read the Isaian passage (53.3-8) in its entirety:

He was despised and rejected by others; a

man of suffering and acquainted with

infirmity; and as one from whom others hide

their faces he was despised, and we held

him of no account. Surely he has borne our

infirmities and carried our diseases; yet we

accounted him stricken, struck down by

God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for

our transgressions, crushed for our

iniquities; upon him was the punishment

that made us whole, and by his bruises we

are healed. All we like sheep have gone

astray; we have all turned to our own way,

and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of

us all. He was oppressed, and he was

afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; like

a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like

a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so

he did not open his mouth. By a perversion

of justice he was taken away. Who could

have imagined his future? For he was cut

off from the land of the living, stricken for

the transgression of my people.

Does this sound like a characterization of a nation, let alone that of Israel? On the contrary, the suffering servant is described in the third-person singular with the masculine personal pronoun “he,” in the sense that it is he who “is led to the slaughter” (Isa. 53.7), not the nation of Israel! He is also described as “a man.” The third-person masculine pronoun “he” is then reiterated in v. 8 in order to establish not only the male identity of the suffering servant but also his personal demise:

For he was cut off from the land of the living

[slain], stricken for the transgression of my

people.

In this particular context, it cannot be a nation that is “cut off from the land of the living . . . for the transgression of” the people. That would strain the contextual meaning to give it a rather absurd interpretation. This is Atonement language regarding a specific man who is slain, and who dies as a sin offering! Isaiah 53.5 adds that his punishment “made us whole,” and “by his bruises we are healed”:

He was wounded for our transgressions,

crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the

punishment that made us whole, and by his

bruises we are healed.

We would normally expect to find this type of language——describing an explicit sacrifice as an atonement for sin——in the New Testament, not in the Hebrew Bible. For the aforementioned reasons, this passage does not square well with the so-called “nation of Israel” philological exegesis. This Hebraic insistence on the nation of Israel is therefore utterly disingenuous and dishonest!

——-

Past Tenses Do Not Imply Past Actions

——-

Insofar as the New Testament is concerned, verbal aspect theory, which is at the cutting edge of Hellenistic Greek linguistics, demonstrates that tense-forms do not have any temporal implications. According to Stanley E Porter, a leading authority on New Testament linguistics, past tenses are not necessarily references to past history:

Temporal values (past, present, future) are

not established in Greek by use of the

verbal aspects (or tense-forms) alone. This

may come as a surprise to those who, like

most students of Greek, were taught at an

elementary level that certain tense-forms

automatically refer to certain times when an

action occurs. [3]

In other words, past tenses do not necessarily imply past history! Similarly, Biblical Hebrew doesn’t have tenses. It’s an “aspectual” language. This means that the same form of a verb can be translated as either past, present, or future! In fact, prophecies are sometimes written in the past tense. Bottom line, one cannot use the past-tense argument to demonstrate that the authorial intent precludes prophetic material.

Conclusion

Isaiah is seemingly writing about prophecy, and the suffering servant is clearly not the nation of Israel but rather a male individual (cf. Rev. 12.5) whose sin offering (Isa. 53.6) is described as a sacrifice for the sins of the people (cf. Rom. 3.23-25; Heb. 9.26b)! He is also described as “a lamb that is led to the slaughter,” reminiscent of the “lamb without . . . blemish” (1 Pet. 1.19; cf. Lev. 4.32), the so-called sin offering sacrifice according to the Mosaic Law! Upon further scrutiny, Isaiah 49 ff. and, especially, Isaiah 53 are explicit references that are more in line with New Testament Soteriology than with the Judaic interpretation of the nation of Israel!

In fact, according to “The Dying Messiah Redux” article, by atheist historian Richard Carrier, the notion of a dying messiah predates Christianity and can also be found in the Talmud: “b.Sanhedrin 98b explicitly says the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is the messiah.” What is more, “b.Sanhedrin 93b says the messiah will endure great suffering . . . and b.Sukkah 52a-b likewise has a dying-and-rising ‘Christ son of Joseph’ ideology in it . . . even saying (quoting Zechariah 12:10) that this messiah will be ‘pierced’ to death.” Carrier concludes:

there is no plausible way later Jews would

invent interpretations of their scripture that

supported and vindicated Christians. They

would not invent a Messiah with a father

named Joseph who dies and is resurrected.

They would not proclaim Isaiah 53 to be

about the messiah and admit that Isaiah

there predicted the messiah would die and

be resurrected. That was the very chapter

Christians were using to prove their case

(and which scholars like Bart Ehrman keep

insisting only Christians saw as messianic).

So we have evidence here of a Jewish belief

that predates Christian evangelizing, even if

the evidence survives only in later sources.

——-

Notes

1 All Scripture quotes are from Michael D. Coogan (ed.), “The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha”: New Revised Standard Version (4th rev. edn; New York: Oxford U., 2010).

2 The Hebrew text is from Karl Elliger and Wilhelm Rudolph (eds.), “Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia” (4th rev. edn; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1967-77).

3 Stanley E. Porter, “Idioms of the Greek New Testament” (2nd edn; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), p. 25.

——-

8 Theses or Disputations on Modern Christianity’s View of the Bible

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

A Call For a *New Reformation*

A common bias of modern Christianity is expressed in this way:

“If your doctrine damages other Biblical

doctrines, you’ve gotta change your

doctrine” (see “Galatians 5:1-12 sermon by

Dr. Bob Utley”; YouTube video).

Not necessarily. Maybe the previous Biblical doctrines need to change in light of new discoveries. Bible scholarship is still evolving like every other discipline. No one can say to Einstein: “if your theory damages previous theories, you’ve gotta change your theory.” What if the previous theories are wrong? Are we to view them as infallible?

What did the Reformers mean by sola scriptura? They meant that the Bible alone provides the “constitutive tenets of the Christian faith.” In other words, the basic tenets of the faith (e.g. credal formulations) are NOT to be found in papal decrees or councils but in the Bible alone! And they went to great lengths to show how both the church and its councils had made many mistakes.

If I can similarly demonstrate that the constitutive tenets of the Christian faith are wrong, and that the Bible contradicts modern Christianity, as the reformers did, then I, too, must call for a *new reformation*! Those hard core adherents of historical Christianity will of course excoriate me as a peddler of godless heresies without honestly investigating my multiple lines of evidence.

——-

1. The New Testament is an Ancient Eastern Text Employing the Literary Conventions of its Time

The New Testament doesn’t use 21st century propositional language but rather Eastern hyperbolic language, parables, poetry, paradox, and the like. Today, any story about a person is immediately seen as a biography. But in those days it could have been a poetic literary expression, akin to what we today would call, “theology.” The gospel writers adopted many of the literary conventions of the ancient writings and created what would be analogous to Greek productions (see Dennis MacDonald’s seminal work, “The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark”). We often miss the genre of the gospels by looking at it with modern western lenses.

——-

2. The Gospel Genre Is Not Biographical

This is the starting point of all the hermeneutical confusion. The gospels are not biographies or historiographical accounts. As most Bible scholars acknowledge, they are largely embellished theological documents that demonstrate the presence of “intertextuality” (i.e. a heavy literary dependence on the Old Testament [OT]). If we don’t understand a particular genre out of which a unique discourse is operating from, then we will inevitably misinterpret the text. So, the assumption that the gospels are furnishing us with biographical information seems to be a misreading of the genre, which appears to be theological or apocalyptic in nature. It is precisely this quasi-biographical literary form that gives the “novel” some verisimilitude. How can we be sure? Let’s look at the New Testament (NT) letters. The epistles apparently contradict the gospels regarding the timeline of Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection by placing it in eschatological categories. The epistolary authors deviate from the gospel writers in their understanding of the overall importance of eschatology in the chronology of Jesus. For them, Scripture comprises revelations and “prophetic writings” (see Rom. 16.25-26; 2 Pet. 1.19-21; Rev. 22.18-19)! According to the NT Epistles, the Christ will die “once for all” (Gk. ἅπαξ hapax) “at the end of the age” (Heb. 9.26b), a phrase which consistently refers to the end of the world (cf. Mt. 13.39-40, 49; 24.3; 28.20). Similarly, just as Heb. 1.2 says that the physical Son speaks to humanity in the “last days,” 1 Pet. 1.20 (NJB) demonstrates the eschatological timing of Christ’s *initial* appearance with unsurpassed lucidity:

“He was marked out before the world was

made, and was revealed at the final point of

time.”

——-

3. NT Scholars Demonstrate that the Gospels Are Not Historical

During his in-depth dialogue with Mike Licona on the historical reliability of the NT (2016), Bart Ehrman stated that “the NT gospels are historically unreliable accounts of Jesus.” In his book, “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach,” NT scholar Michael Licona has actually de-historicized parts of the gospel (i.e. Mt. 27.51-53), showing, for example, that the resurrection of the saints after Jesus’ crucifixion is indicative of a non-literal, apocalyptic genre rather than of an actual historical event. Licona suggests that the appearance of angels at Jesus’ tomb after the resurrection is legendary. He considers parts of the gospels to be “poetic language or legend,” especially in regard to the raising of some dead saints at Jesus’ death (Mt. 27.51-54) and the angel(s) at the tomb (Mk 15.5-7; Mt. 28.2-7; Lk 24.4-7; Jn 20.11-13). NT scholar, James Crossley agrees that the purported events of Mt. 27.52-53 didn’t happen. Licona is, in some sense, de-mythologizing the Bible in the tradition of Rudolf Bultmann. This infiltration of legend in Matthew extends to all the other gospels as well. According to the book called “The Jesus Crisis” by Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell, two NT scholars, the sermon on the mount didn’t happen. The commissioning of the 12 did not happen. The parables of Matthew 13 and 14 didn’t happen. According to this book, it’s all made up. The magi? Fiction. The genealogy? Fiction! Robert H. Gundry, a professor of NT studies and koine Greek, has also said that Matthew 1-3 (the infancy narratives) were historical fiction (Midrash). Similarly, NT scholar Robert M. Price argues that all the Gospel stories of Jesus are a kind of midrash on the OT, and therefore completely fictional. Thomas L. Brodie, a Dominican priest, author, and academic, has similarly emphasised that most of the gospel thematic material is borrowed from the Hebrew Bible. These scholarly views have profound implications for so-called “historical Christianity,” its systematic theology, and its doctrines. Moreover, British NT scholar, James Dunn thought that the resurrection of Christ didn’t happen. He thought that Jesus was not resurrected in Antiquity but that Jesus probably meant he would be resurrected at the last judgment! What is more, Ludermann, Crossan, Ehrman, Bultmann all think that the resurrection is based on visions. So does Luke! No one saw Jesus during or after the so-called resurrection. The women saw a “vision” (Lk 24.23–24) just as the eyewitnesses did who were said to be “chosen beforehand” in Acts 10.40–41. Similarly, Paul only knows of the divine Christ (Gal. 1.11–12). With regard to the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, where more than 500 people supposedly saw Christ, Paul suggests that they all saw him just as he did. He declares: “Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared ALSO to me” (1 Cor. 15.8 emphasis added). In other words, in saying “also to me; Gk. κἀμοί), Paul suggests that Christ appeared to others in the same way or manner that he appeared to him (that is to say, by way of “visions”)!

——-

4. A Few Examples of Legendary Elements in the Gospels

A few examples from the gospels serve to illustrate these points. From the point of view of form criticism, it is well-known among biblical scholars that The Feeding of the 5,000 (aka the "miracle of the five loaves and two fish") in Jn 6.5-13 is a literary pattern that can be traced back to the OT tradition of 2 Kings 4.40-44. Besides the parallel thematic motifs, there are also near verbal agreements: "They shall eat and have some left” (2 Kings 4.43). Compare Jn 6.13: “So they gathered ... twelve baskets ... left over by those who had eaten.” The magi are also taken from Ps. 72.11: “May all kings fall down before him.” The phrase “they have pierced my hands and my feet” is from Ps. 22.16; “They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst” is from Psalm 69.21. The virgin birth comes from a Septuagint translation of Isaiah 7.14. The “Calming the storm” episode is taken from Ps. 107.23-30, and so on & so forth. Is there anything real that actually happened which is not taken from the Jewish Bible? Another example demonstrates the legendary nature of the Trial of Jesus. Everything about the trial of Jesus is at odds with what we know about Jewish Law and Jewish proceedings.

Six trials occur between Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion:

Jewish Trials

1. Before Annas

2. Before Caiaphas

3. Before the Sanhedrin

Roman Trials

4. Before Pilate

5. Before Herod

6. Before Pilate

Every single detail of each and every trial is not only illegal, but utterly ridiculous to be considered as a historical “fact.”

Illegalities ...

a) Binding a prisoner before he was condemned was illegal.

b) It was also illegal for Judges to participate in the arrest of the accused.

c) It was also illegal to have legal proceedings, legal transactions, or conduct a trial at night. It’s preposterous to have a trial going on in the middle of the night.

d) According to the law, although an acquittal may be pronounced on the same day, any other verdict required a majority of two and must come on a subsequent day. This law was also violated.

e) Moreover, no prisoner could be convicted on his own evidence. However, following Jesus’ reply under oath, a guilty verdict was pronounced!

f) Furthermore, it was the duty of a judge to make sure that the interest of the accused was fully protected.

g) The use of violence during the trial was completely unopposed by the judges (e.g. they slapped Jesus around). That was not just illegal; that kind of thing just didn’t happen.

h) The judges supposedly sought false witnesses against Jesus. Also illegal.

i) In a Jewish court room the accused was to be assumed innocent until proved guilty by two or more witnesses. This was certainly violated here as well.

j) No witness was ever called by the defense (except Jesus’ self incrimination testimony). Not just illegal; unheard of.

k) The Court lacked the civil authority to condemn a man to death.

l) It was also illegal to conduct a session of the court on a feast day (it was Passover).

m) Finally, the sentence is passed in the palace of the high priest, but Jewish law demanded that it be pronounced in the temple, in the hall of hewn stone. They didn’t do that either.

n) Also, the high priest is said to rend his garment (that was against the law). He was never permitted to tear his official robe (Lev. 21:10). For example, without his priestly robe he couldn’t have put Christ under oath in the first place.

Thus, all these illegalities according to Jewish law are not only quite unimaginable but utterly unrealistic to have happened in history.

——-

5. Bart Ehrman Says That Paul Tells Us Nothing About the Historical Jesus

One of the staunch proponents of the historical Jesus position is the renowned textual scholar Bart Ehrman, who, surprisingly, said this on his blog:

“Paul says almost *NOTHING* about the

events of Jesus’ lifetime. That seems weird

to people, but just read all of his letters.

Paul never mentions Jesus healing anyone,

casting out a demon, doing any other

miracle, arguing with Pharisees or other

leaders, teaching the multitudes, even

speaking a parable, being baptized, being

transfigured, going to Jerusalem, being

arrested, put on trial, found guilty of

blasphemy, appearing before Pontius Pilate

on charges of calling himself the King of the

Jews, being flogged, etc. etc. etc. It’s a

very, very long list of what he doesn’t tell us

about.”

——-

6. The External Evidence Does Not Support the Historicity of Jesus

A) There are no eyewitnesses.

B) The gospel writers are not eyewitnesses.

C) The epistolary authors are not eyewitnesses.

D) Paul hasn’t seen Jesus in the flesh.

E) As a matter of fact, no one has ever seen or heard Jesus (there are no firsthand accounts)!

F) Contemporaries of Jesus seemingly didn’t see him either; otherwise they’d have written at least a single word about him. For example, Philo of Alexandria is unaware of Jesus’ existence.

G) Later generations didn’t see him either because not even a passing reference to Jesus is ever written by a secular author in the span of approximately 65y.

H) The very first mention of Jesus by a secular source comes at the close of the first century (93-94 CE). Here’s the scholarly verdict on Josephus’ text: “Almost all modern scholars reject the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum in its present form” - wiki

I) Even Kurt Åland——the founder of the Institute for NT textual Research, who was also a textual critic and one of the principal editors of the modern critical NT——questioned whether Jesus existed! In his own words: “it almost then appears as if Jesus were a mere PHANTOM . . . “ (emphasis added)! Bertrand Russell, a British polymath, didn’t think Christ existed either. He said: “Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all” (“Why I am not a Christian”).

J) Interestingly enough, even though scholars usually reject the historicity of Noah, Abraham, and Moses, they nevertheless support the historicity of Jesus, which seems to be a case of special pleading. In his article, “Beware of Consensus Theology,” Dr. Stephen R. Lewis correctly writes:

there have been so many things society has held

as true when in fact they are merely a consensus.

. . . We must beware of our own “consensus

theology.” . . . We must beware of allowing the

theology of anyone—Augustine, Martin Luther,

John Calvin, or whomever—to take precedence

over the teachings of Scripture.

——-

7. First Peter 1.10-11 Suggests An Eschatological Soteriology:

“Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow” (1 Pet. 1.10-11 NIV).

Exegesis

First, notice that the prophets (Gk. προφῆται) in the aforementioned passage are said to have the Spirit of Christ (Gk. Πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ) within them, thereby making it abundantly clear that they are prophets of the NT, since there’s no reference to the Spirit of Christ in the OT. That they were NT prophets is subsequently attested by verse 12 with its reference to the gospel:

“It was revealed to them that they were not

serving themselves but you, when they

spoke of the things that have now been told

you by those who have preached the gospel

to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven.”

Second, the notion that 1 Peter 1.10-11 is referring to NT as opposed to OT prophets is further established by way of the doctrine of salvation (Gk. σωτηρίας), which is said to come through the means of grace! This explicit type of Soteriology (namely, through grace; Gk. χάριτος) cannot be found anywhere in the OT.

Third, and most importantly, observe that “the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow” were actually “PREDICTED” (Gk. προμαρτυρόμενον; i.e., testified beforehand) by “the Spirit of Christ” (Gk. Πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ; presumably a reference to the Holy Spirit) and communicated to the NT prophets so that they might record them for posterity’s sake (cf. v. 12). Therefore, the passion of Christ was seemingly written in advance—-or prophesied, if you will—-according to this apocalyptic NT passage!

_______________________________________

Here’s Further Evidence that the Gospel of Christ is Promised Beforehand in the NT. In the undermentioned passage, notice that it was “the gospel concerning his Son” “which he [God] promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures.” This passage further demonstrates that these are NT prophets, since there’s no reference to “the gospel (Gk. εὐαγγέλιον) of God … concerning his Son” in the OT:

“Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be

an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God,

which he promised beforehand through his

prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel

concerning his Son” (Rom. 1.1-3 NRSV).

Moreover, Paul’s letters are referred to as “Scripture” in 2 Pet. 3.16, while Luke’s gospel is referred to as “Scripture” in 1 Tim. 5.18!

——-

8. Conclusion: NT History is Written in Advance

The all-pervading scriptural theme——that Christ’s gospel, crucifixion, and resurrection is either promised, known, or witnessed *beforehand* by the foreknowledge of God——should be the guiding principle for NT interpretation. First, we read that “the gospel concerning his [God’s] Son” is “promised beforehand (προεπηγγείλατο; Rom. 1.2). Second, the text reveals that Jesus was foreknown to be crucified “according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (προγνώσει; Acts 2.22-23). Third, this theme is reiterated in Acts 10.40-41 in which we are told that Jesus’ resurrection is *only* visible “to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God” (προκεχειροτονημένοις; NASB). Accordingly, the evidence suggests that the knowledge of Christ’s coming was communicated beforehand to the preselected witnesses through the agency of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn 16.13; 2 Pet. 1.17-19 ff.). It appears, then, that the theological purpose of the gospels is to provide a fitting introduction to the messianic story beforehand so that it can be passed down from generation to generation until the time of its fulfilment. It is as though New Testament history is written in advance:

“I am God . . . declaring the end from the

beginning and from ancient times things

not yet done (Isa. 46.9-10).

Mine is the only view that appropriately combines the end-time messianic expectations of the Jews with Christian Scripture!

What if the Crucifixion of Christ is a future event? (See my article “WHY DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT REFER TO CHRIST’S FUTURE COMING AS A REVELATION?”: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/187927555567/why-does-the-new-testament-refer-to-christs).

Eli of Kittim

WHY DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT REFER TO CHRIST’S FUTURE COMING AS A “REVELATION”?

By Eli Kittim It’s important to note the language that’s often used with regard to the future coming of Christ, namely, as the “revelation

——-